That if enough people stopped eating meat, the suffering of animals would diminish

However if someone goes for a meal at someone's house and is offered a slice of turkey as part of the meal, they should eat it. Otherwise they are clinging to the ideal of vegetarianism instead of practicing equanimity.

He who binds to himself a joyDoes the wingèd life destroy;But he who kisses the joy as it fliesLives in eternity's sunrise.

clw_uk wrote:...However if someone goes for a meal at someone's house and is offered a slice of turkey as part of the meal, they should eat it.

If I'm invited for a meal, I always tell people in advance that I'm a vegetarian. I'm also happy to eat the vegetable side dishes or to take a veggie burger with me if there's no other alternative. Its never been a problem and its not necessary to eat the meat.

Otherwise they are clinging to the ideal of vegetarianism instead of practicing equanimity.

clw_uk wrote:...However if someone goes for a meal at someone's house and is offered a slice of turkey as part of the meal, they should eat it.

If I'm invited for a meal, I always tell people in advance that I'm a vegetarian. I'm also happy to eat the vegetable side dishes or to take a veggie burger with me if there's no other alternative. Its never been a problem and its not necessary to eat the meat.

Otherwise they are clinging to the ideal of vegetarianism instead of practicing equanimity.

I disagree

Strange to find a topic we disagree on lol

But if someone offers you meat, why would you decline if it wasnt for holding to a doctrine?

I think thats why the Buddha did eat meat if it was offered and why vegetarianism isnt required for enlightenment

He who binds to himself a joyDoes the wingèd life destroy;But he who kisses the joy as it fliesLives in eternity's sunrise.

Alex123 wrote:BV is one of tools to measure protein quality. But even with PDCAAS, please not that milk & egg protein are higher than vegetarian sources provided.Also, soy is so controversial that I don't consider it. Some other sources such as quinoa doesn't have that much protein as animal sources.

As you can see from the above chart, soy and mycoprotein are both superior quality to beef. I'm curious as to where amaranth, buckwheat, quinoa, and spirulina would fall on the above chart. I would not be surprised if any of them scored above beef also.

You are correct about soy, except that it might have bad health side effects, especially for men. I am all for vegetarianism in principle. But unfortunately real life is harsh...

So if one needs 100-200g of protein per day... One would need 2.5-5 KG (5.5 - 12.1 pounds) of it per day...

Yes! However, those differences become completely irrelevant when speaking in the context of a 2,500 calorie diet that is balanced from a variety of plant foods. Frutarians...now that is a different story! Experts agree that it's near impossible to be deficient in protein quality or quantity as long as you get enough calories. So yes, technically you can say "beef has more protein per gram than quinoa". But when speaking in the context of a balanced non-calorie deficient diet, that technicality becomes irrelevant.

I also don't agree that soy in moderate quantities has bad effects, especially for men. The evidence just doesn't show this. The evidence does show that if soy is consumed in extremely massive quantities, then you start to see bad effects. The evidence simply does not show that soy consumed moderately is bad for you. Brings to mind the old saying "too much of anything is bad for you". Heck, too much water can actually kill you. Doesn't mean water is bad for you!

clw_uk wrote:

But if someone offers you meat, why would you decline if it wasnt for holding to a doctrine?

Speaking for myself, for the same reason why other ordinary everyday, even non buddhist, people would decline human meat, if it was offered to them.

Alex123 wrote: I am all for vegetarianism in principle. But unfortunately real life is harsh...

As you also acknowledge a vegetarian diet without missing important nutriments is possible so it's just a matter of wanting to put forth the effort. Millions of people make it work so apparently it's not as harsh as you think.

Alex123 wrote: I am all for vegetarianism in principle. But unfortunately real life is harsh...

As you also acknowledge a vegetarian diet without missing important nutriments is possible so it's just a matter of wanting to put forth the effort. Millions of people make it work so apparently it's not as harsh as you think.

That depends on the context.

He who binds to himself a joyDoes the wingèd life destroy;But he who kisses the joy as it fliesLives in eternity's sunrise.

Alex123 wrote: I am all for vegetarianism in principle. But unfortunately real life is harsh...

As you also acknowledge a vegetarian diet without missing important nutriments is possible so it's just a matter of wanting to put forth the effort. Millions of people make it work so apparently it's not as harsh as you think.

That depends on the context.

That's true of course. But the reasons Alex gave I don't think are a context that makes it hard.

Speaking for myself, for the same reason why other ordinary everyday, even non buddhist, people would decline human meat, if it was offered to them.

You raise an important point. Why would the Buddha allow for the eating of animal meat and not human meat, if offered at a meal.

The only conclusion I can come to is to keep up the image of the sangha

I would be interested in seeing scriptural evidence of that if anyone has one. The only conclusion I can come to is that cannibalism is unethical.

In the sense of it involves killing a human, then yes. However this is no different to the killing of cows for meat. Therefore if a monk visited Hannibal lectres house, and he provides a meal of liver and beans, with some wine the monk would have to eat it, as long as he hadn't seen it or suspected the guy was killed for him to eat, yet not drink the wine

He who binds to himself a joyDoes the wingèd life destroy;But he who kisses the joy as it fliesLives in eternity's sunrise.

seeker242 wrote:Yes! However, those differences become completely irrelevant when speaking in the context of a 2,500 calorie diet that is balanced from a variety of plant foods.

If a person needs at least 100g of protein, then what vegetarian foods do you suggest?

While I do soak and blend cashews or pumpkin seeds, because they are too high in calories (and only eating them is iffy), it is not the optimum for me, for now. Not considering the cost either.

Also, whey is optimum post workout shake, but it is not vegetarian food. There is no equivalent vegetarian substitute for it. I am not going to take soy.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

clw_uk wrote:In the sense of it involves killing a human, then yes. However this is no different to the killing of cows for meat. Therefore if a monk visited Hannibal lectres house, and he provides a meal of liver and beans, with some wine the monk would have to eat it, as long as he hadn't seen it or suspected the guy was killed for him to eat, yet not drink the wine

This would be an un-allowable food so would be refused.

The following types of meat are unallowable: that of human beings, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas. Human beings, horses, and elephants were regarded as too noble to be used as food. The other types of meat were forbidden either on grounds that they were repulsive ("People criticized and complained and spread it about, 'How can these Sakyan-son monks eat dog meat? Dogs are loathsome, disgusting'") or dangerous (bhikkhus, smelling of lion's flesh, went into the jungle; the lions there, instead of criticizing or complaining, attacked them).http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... h08-4.html

Perhaps someone with a good knowledge of the vinaya could confirm, but my impression is that bhikkus are not required to eat everything that is offered (which would clearly be impossible in most cases). They are free to choose from what is offered. That's what I've always observed of a variety of Bhikkhus.

Of courses, in some circumstances (such as those described by Ajahn Brahm in Isaan in the early 1970's) there is little choice, so eating frogs or whatever might be the only way to get enough food. However, that sort of situation is probably uncommon today.

mikenz66 wrote:Perhaps someone with a good knowledge of the vinaya could confirm, but my impression is that bhikkus are not required to eat everything that is offered (which would clearly be impossible in most cases). They are free to choose from what is offered. That's what I've always observed of a variety of Bhikkhus.

There are some forms of meat that Bhikkhus are not allowed to eat.

The following types of meat are unallowable: that of human beings, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas. Human beings, horses, and elephants were regarded as too noble to be used as food. The other types of meat were forbidden either on grounds that they were repulsive ("People criticized and complained and spread it about, 'How can these Sakyan-son monks eat dog meat? Dogs are loathsome, disgusting'") or dangerous (bhikkhus, smelling of lion's flesh, went into the jungle; the lions there, instead of criticizing or complaining, attacked them)...To eat human flesh entails a thullaccaya;...Furthermore, even cooked fish or meat of an allowable kind is unallowable if the bhikkhu sees, hears, or suspects that the animal was killed specifically for the purpose of feeding bhikkhus (Mv.VI.31.14).http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... h08-4.html

In times of famine, I don't think that monks would be picky about allowable food which includes meat.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Speaking for myself, for the same reason why other ordinary everyday, even non buddhist, people would decline human meat, if it was offered to them.

You raise an important point. Why would the Buddha allow for the eating of animal meat and not human meat, if offered at a meal.

The only conclusion I can come to is to keep up the image of the sangha

There was a Jain argument, if I recall correctly, to the effect that Buddhists were amoral since they claimed that there was no fault for a monk when eating a baby, if that monk neither saw nor heard nor otherwise suspected such foul play. Since the utter repulsiveness of the idea was so obviously abhorrent, therefore the Buddhists must be horribly mistaken in their teachings about morality.

(But surely this is a misguided and indirect attack on the kamma = cetana equation. While the above event can be judged horrific, it is nevertheless possible for there to be context within which there is no moral misstep on the part of that monk.)

As to types of meat generally, the Buddha seems to have accepted social taboos on certain meats, and since the Vinaya is to a great extent a matter of finding an agreeable interface with contemporary social pro-&-pre-scriptions I think it's perfectly serviceable to accept current taboos, which should address the point. The Vinaya is for the taming of humans who choose to be guided by the Dhamma, not for the changing of society.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

A bhikkhu can refuse certain foods, for example those from the kinds of meat not allowable or for example, a bottle of liquor. The threefold rule does not require the monk to accept everything. Also, if food is offered at the wrong time, i.e., in the afternoon, it must also be refused.

mikenz66 wrote:Of courses, in some circumstances (such as those described by Ajahn Brahm in Isaan in the early 1970's) there is little choice, so eating frogs or whatever might be the only way to get enough food. However, that sort of situation is probably uncommon today.

I have often wondered about this one. AB mentions this event when the subject of eating or vegetarianism comes up. He reports that the whole frog was there in his bowl. Another monk stuck his fork into the frog and hit the bladder and urine spilled out. The other monk got disgusted and didn't eat. AB knew where the bladder was and was able to eat the frog in his bowl.

Since the whole frog was there in the bowl (not parts), couldn't or shouldn't he have "suspected" that the animal was killed specifically for him and the other monks? After all, it is the whole animal there in the bowl. I suppose it is possible the frog died of natural causes, but knowing that meat-eating and production is common in that area, it would seem that it is likely the frogs were killed specifically for lunch dana for the bhikkhus.

"I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu. I say that meat should not be eaten in these three instances. I say that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, not heard, and not suspected, that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu."Majjhima Nikaya 55.5

...couldn't or shouldn't he have "suspected" that the animal was killed specifically for him and the other monks?

Rightly, or otherwise, this is the way this wanderer looks upon every dish offered...it ain't easy being a vegi monastic in Thailand, where virtually 99.9% of food offered is carne (meat) based...fortunately there's a never ending supply of rice, and the odd veg (and sauce) to be had...

David N. Snyder wrote:A bhikkhu can refuse certain foods, for example those from the kinds of meat not allowable or for example, a bottle of liquor. The threefold rule does not require the monk to accept everything. Also, if food is offered at the wrong time, i.e., in the afternoon, it must also be refused.

mikenz66 wrote:Of courses, in some circumstances (such as those described by Ajahn Brahm in Isaan in the early 1970's) there is little choice, so eating frogs or whatever might be the only way to get enough food. However, that sort of situation is probably uncommon today.

I have often wondered about this one. AB mentions this event when the subject of eating or vegetarianism comes up. He reports that the whole frog was there in his bowl. Another monk stuck his fork into the frog and hit the bladder and urine spilled out. The other monk got disgusted and didn't eat. AB knew where the bladder was and was able to eat the frog in his bowl.

Since the whole frog was there in the bowl (not parts), couldn't or shouldn't he have "suspected" that the animal was killed specifically for him and the other monks? After all, it is the whole animal there in the bowl. I suppose it is possible the frog died of natural causes, but knowing that meat-eating and production is common in that area, it would seem that it is likely the frogs were killed specifically for lunch dana for the bhikkhus.

In Isaan and in Thailand in general, eating frogs is not unusual. I have eaten it many many times prepared in different manners.......my wife cooks it herself sometimes.......there are at least two different kinds eaten where I live which can be differentiated by seeing that one kind is big and one kind is small. The small ones are typically fried whole after a rudimentary cleaning of only a small amount of internal organs most of which are left intact. They are crispy and each one is a single bite or maybe two. The big frogs are about the size of what most people consider to be a regular or large sized frog....a medium to small sized one would cover a child's palm and a big one would cover an adult's hand. They are prepared on different ways one of which is to roast it whole after a rudimentary cleaning which seems to be more thorough than what is give to the previously mentioned small frogs. So, these large frogs that are roasted are usually served whole. I have eaten them this way along with my wife and the issue of the bladder being present or not has never come up. If the bladder is intact after cleaning (maybe it is removed, I don't know) then it is likely that it's contents have been realeased although I don't know.....and then it would be washed away in the final rinse before cooking. If the urine is cooked then it probably just adds to the flavor.......you can be sure that if urine left in could squirt out and give a bad flavor then the Thai people would remove it.....Thai cooks know a lot about which internal organs are edible or not since internal organs are usually eaten if they are good......organs you have probably not thought of.......a chickens internal organs are pretty much all edible......and taste good.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that unless someone is an expert in frog anatomy it is unlikely that they would know if they had punctured a bladder or not and if they did it probably would not give a bad flavor to the food as if it would do this it would likely have been removed when the frog was cleaned because Thai cooks are knowledgeable in these matters and they pride themselves on their food.

And the real bottom line is that there would be no reason to think that the frogs were killed specifically for the monks in that if the season is right you go collect frogs.......then you usually cook all of the ones you have caught after giving some to family and friends if there are a lot.........and then eat them whenever it is time to eat if you are so inclined. The frogs the monks ate might have been caught and roasted the night before and the next morning there were a bunch still left so someone decided to give it to the monks at bindabat...........but I don't know for sure how it transpired......but no reason to think the frogs were killed for the monks specifically.